It really happened. The NASA scientist who lit the bonfire of the global warming vanities with his flamboyant congressional testimony 14 years ago, has turned the hose on its dying embers.

There is now no reason for the Bush administration to give an inch on climate change. Sure, energy efficient technologies (like my Honda hybrid) are worth exploring. But there is absolutely no scientific reason for any expensive policy like the Kyoto Protocol on global warming. Mr. Bush led the world by being the first to walk away from Kyoto, and science has proven him correct.

Great Post. All the recent speaches by "Future Demo Presidential Candidates" have been heavily laced with a call for renewables (expensive and unreliable) and heavy emphasis on conversation.

These idiotic ideas are based on the following fallacies:a. Zero population growth.b. Zero immigration.c. Zero new construction.d. Zero increase in manufacturing, chemical and fertilizer production.e. Immediate production of fuel cell vehicle at a competitive price and safety record.g. Immediate construction of solar and wind generators a competitive prices ($.04 per kilowatt hr).

None of the above will happen for obvious reasons. Telling Americans they can solve an energy shortage by using less, is like telling Somali's they can solve a food shortage by eating less.

Climate models, such as those run by NASA, initially assumed that the sensitivity was much larger than it was in reality

In the real world, this is known as GIGO (garbage in, garbage out). Anybody with half a brain and a chart of temperature fluctuations for all of pre-industrial history derived from any method whatsoever, can see that attempting to segregate "human influence" is a fool's errand. In every case the indicated variability in temperature that can be plainly seen is orders of magnitude greater than any scientifically explained change.

The touchy-feelie crowd, with its mission to control the rest of us by whatever means possible, just won't give up. Socialism by any other name...

I do wish I knew who the socialist genius was who initially suggested that political change and wealth redistribution be effected by appealing to our fear of "saving" the planet. Appealing to the inevitable fear of the ignorant was truly a stroke of genius.

I see by some of the posts that we all shared some skepticism about Hanson's initial claims of global warming.

If it was budgetary or political (it could not have been simple stupidity), why did so many people buy it when someone like myself whose understanding of meteorology goes no further than the simplest of local weather forecasts doubted its veracity from the beginning?

One of the biggest debacles of the "Global Warming" hoax was the CFC phony scientific ban. CFC's were inexpensive, and WORKED! Once the CFC's were banned we have a much less efficient system of cooling or refrigeration, at a much higher price. Nobody could PROVE a thing, but the junk science machine kept eating at the edges until people believed it. This is exactly what the damn greens wanted, as deep down inside they are simply Luddites in "save the earth" clothing.

The history of this "debate" goes back to the early 60's when the Democrats began losing congressional seats in oil producing states. When "Big Oil" (like Big Tobbaco after them) began making larger campaign donations to the more business-friendly Republicans than to the diminishing 'dixiecrats' (just as happened later with tobbaco) the Dems party leaders switched into Demonization mode and started the "Get Oil Out" campaign. This, of course, was cloaked in the resectable flag of the infant conservation movement and abetted by the traitors who saw America's energy superiority as a threat to the Communist revolution they so dearly hoped would overtake the west. The current Global Warming ploy was to have the same effect of hurting domestic oil producers (and therefore consumers) to the point that 1) when in power Republicans would find it hard to openly accept "oil money" and 2) when Dems are in power they would be the happy recieptiants of oil company 'protection money' to keep the most Draconian of possible laws at bay! In short...FOLLOW THE MONEY!

Back in the 1940's and early 50's the great astronomers thought they had a good understanding of our solar system. According to predictions based on it's albedo (the percentage of light reflected) and distance from the sun, Venus should have had a surface temperature a few degrees warmer than Earth. Venus is closer to the sun, and therefore it receives more energy per square meter than the earth, but it reflects 70% of the sun's light due to the cloud cover.

Along comes a guy named Velikovsky, who published two books: Worlds in Collision, and Earth in Upheaval.

In these books, Velikovsky argues that Venus is a new member of our solar system, born in a gigantic cataclysm that occurred not in the distant geological past, but within human history. Velikovsky boldly predicts that Venus is still cooling off, but should have a surface temperature hot enough to melt lead (if his thesis is correct). Velikovsky is mocked and reviled by the scientific community, but in 1954 the first microwave temperature measurements prove him right.

The scientists knew that their theories of our solar system's evolution could not account for the temperature on Venus, and to allow any consideration of a cataclysmic explanation would have supported Velikovsky. They had to produce a theory to explain the high temperature, that also allowed Venus to be as old as the rest of the planets. Eventually, they produced a theory that blamed the CO2 which makes up 96% of the Venusian atmosphere. This was the "greenhouse" effect.

It was this theory that started all of the worry about earth's "greenhouse" gasses like CO2 and methane, but few are willing to go back and reconsider the data from Venus, and wether it supports this theory. For any who are interested, here is a link:

6 - "Think about how NASA always...ALWAYS...timed their Shuttle missions to coincide with Congressional appropriations issues...and how they always...ALWAYS...found furthering evidence of global warming, or Ozone depletion...or some such nonsense, to grandize their necessity for more funds to study the matter..."

Sorry, I can't this ignorant crap be posted without posting the truth, by someone who worked on the Shuttle lauches.

1. NASA missions are timed to heavenly body locations and technical and construction capabilities and money - often years in advance, so that often very small windows of a few days or even in some cases a few hours, can be met. And it is really tough to meet those schedules, let alone to schedule for politics.

2. As for global warming, NASA has been the one who has been saying for the last several years, they find no evidence of global warming from their satelites. The global warming crowd has gotten it's data from ground temperature stations, which once were out in the country, and which now, because of population growth, are in the city.

NASA does need conogressional support though, and has stupidly spread design and construction jobs around the country to garner congressional support, and as such has wasted a tremendous amount of money building a space station which is years and years late and so far under initial concept capabilities that it is essentially worthless.

So, in his last paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Mr. Hansen and Makiko Sato wrote,....

For those posters/lurkers who were smart enough to not get a degree in the physical sciences... "Proceedings" (also known under the acronym of PNAS) is just about as good as it gets in terms of peer-reviewed journals of science. I've helped review/edit a number of papers for review/publication by PNAS and the standards are STRINGENT.

(Yep, some junk does get by the reviewers now and then...but it's a low percentage deal.)

Excellent post. Here's the REAL question: What is the NEXT catastrophe the left will generate to encourage government control over the economy and people's freedom? My guess, either overpopulation (the AIDS epidemic already looks like a bust) or global COOLING. Of course, both of these are retreads of earlier scare attempts, but the socialists need some issue to pump up the UN role and to condemn the capitalist US for.

Japanese industry groups have forced the government to drop mandatory restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto agreement, making it unlikely Tokyo will be able to meet its reduction targets, the Yomiuri newspaper said.

The decision by an Environment Ministry policy board, under pressure from corporate lobbies, to impose only voluntary limits on carbon dioxide emissions would spell doom for Japan's six percent reduction goal. The newspaper quoted an unidentified member of the panel, which is drafting Japan's strategy to fight global warming, as saying there is nothing in its upcoming report that directly commits companies to cut back on polluting.

Economic slump blamed Reducing emissions by 6 percent from the benchmark year of 1990 will be all the more formidable for Japan because the nation's carbon dioxide levels have risen about 17 percent over the past decade.

The nation's deep economic slump is also likely to make corporate Japan fight harder against any measures that increase the costs of production.

Japan plans to ratify the international treaty on global warming in June, 2002 during its regular session of Parliament.

Seeing the protocol to fruition is a matter of national pride for Japan, which basked in the international attention of brokering the deal in 1997.

However, after the United States pulled out of the pact in March, Japan questioned whether there was any meaning in ratifying it without the world's biggest industrial power -- and polluter -- on board.

Japan's decision to ratify the protocol came in November, months after European nations had collectively announced they would approve the treaty even without Washington's participation.

Unfortunatly the average American will never hear about this, and those who believe in global warming that do hear about it will dismiss it.

Just as we've yet to hear about the bogus scare of an AIDS epidemic among heterosexuals. It was never going to happen but the fear mongerers and those who profitted from saying it would were able spread a false alarm among the general populace. Have we ever heard an explanation about why the disease wasn't spread? No. That would expose those that spread the message as either ignorant or fraudulent. So we are left to sit in increasing cynicasm while the perps move on to even nastier rapes of the public trust. How many who lost someone dear on 9/11 are ready to throttle the leaders of the United Way or Red Cross who so eagerly stepped out to raise money in their names then keep it for themselves without distributing it? How many of us who gave money feel betrayed by those and other organizations who bilk our money in ways hardly different from common confidence artists? Not holding the leftwing flim-flam crowd responsible for their nonsense is a sure-fire recipe for societal suicide.

"In these books, Velikovsky argues that Venus is a new member of our solar system, born in a gigantic cataclysm that occurred not in the distant geological past, but within human history. Velikovsky boldly predicts that Venus is still cooling off, but should have a surface temperature hot enough to melt lead (if his thesis is correct). Velikovsky is mocked and reviled by the scientific community, but in 1954 the first microwave temperature measurements prove him right.

"The scientists knew that their theories of our solar system's evolution could not account for the temperature on Venus, and to allow any consideration of a cataclysmic explanation would have supported Velikovsky. They had to produce a theory to explain the high temperature, that also allowed Venus to be as old as the rest of the planets. Eventually, they produced a theory that blamed the CO2 which makes up 96% of the Venusian atmosphere. This was the "greenhouse" effect."

Oh, puhleeeze.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Velikovsky was a loon. He exemplifies the danger when an expert in one field comes to believe he is an expert in all fields.

Velikovsky was quite thoroughly dispatched by Isaac Asimov in his essay, Worlds in Confusion.

Velikovsky (I am working from memory here) claimed that Venus had an atmosphere made of hydrocarbons. This is false.

He could not account for the lack of eccentricity in Venus' orbit.

He could not explain why Venus' orbit follows the Bode-Titus law.

And, most laughable of all, Velikovsky admitted his theories were incompatible with Newton's Laws of Motion, and then recommended that Newton be revised to match his (Velikovsky's) theories!

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.